Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 referred to external factors, like relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. This method uses numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which could be left out. It is also useful to review the existing research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.